The thing that concerns me the most is that I still remember how our former socialist government curbed criticism and it was pretty much entirely through non-state actors - critics and "undesirables" found them selves out of their jobs, their children got scholarships denied, landlords suddenly didn't want to rent apartments, reporters found themselves fired for gross negligence, funding (both governmental and private) for academic institutions housing critical scientists just disappeared. At the end of the day it mattered absolutely nothing WHO was the actor - expressing opinions against the party line could threaten your livelihood, your future and future of your children.

Because of that it's utterly terrifying to me when I see those notions here on HN - it seems like visitors on this site know very little about history of the 20th century and the reasoning for many ways how modern (supposedly) free states are set up.

Note that that's not to say that people cannot be criticized for their opinions - but there's a difference between criticism and attempting to destroy someones career and ability to join social circles. It's a blurry line, but still a line. It's the difference between politely shutting up your racist homophobic uncle on a gathering or demanding that his pension is revoked.

> it seems like visitors on this site know very little about history of the 20th century and the reasoning for many ways how modern (supposedly) free states are set up

Most of them actually don't care a fig for the "free" part. That's why it's becoming increasingly popular for the anti-free speech crowd to explicitly describe themselves as anti-liberal. (This may also be why "liberal" is falling out of favor, with "progressive" taking up the slack.) There's absolutely no caution or skepticism about political power as such, only interest in directing it as forcefully as possible against anyone they consider beyond-the-pale.

Your last line there is the key, and the filter by which we can see if that comic is worrying or wise.

HN has a rather brutal philosophy in flagging/downvoting items lacking substance and shadowbanning troll-ish folk; it seems to work ok and is usually not too sinister (and when it is, human intervention/moderation can often help). By contrast, large communities like states and national institutions can - with just a hint and a nod - inflict surprisingly chilling effects throughout communities of millions.

So where do we draw the line? I dunno. Whereever we draw it, it's got to be parametric with enough inputs to take into account at least the rough subtleties of the situation. Because the comic is right: I don't need to put up with an asshole's bullshit, but I also don't want to destroy them. Just, you know, tone it down a smidge and stop being a jerk.

I'm fairly passive. Normally I do that by ignoring them, changing the channel, or just avoiding the website. Rarely I'll actively flag or downvote (ugh, so hamfisted). And sometimes, I just go away if they take root. With high-signal web analytics, tracking, stats, and other social-buzz things, my avoidance may actually be logged and noted. Maybe I help starve out what I consider noise, thus boosting what I consider signal.

What if a lot of people in a community are just outraged? Or are very sensitive to easily become outraged? I think that's where things get underdamped fast, and where your worries come into play. My only thought is to starve it of energy 'till it settles down, but we've seen enough self-sustaining bullshit storms that I bet passive resistance doesn't work much anymore for that.

EDIT: speling

I'm not sure where the boundary of acceptable responses to contentious speech may lie, but surely choosing to avoid an expensive and optional conference because it has booked a particular speaker is well within one's options. Free speech doesn't obligate anyone else to listen.

> surely choosing to avoid an expensive and optional conference because it has booked a particular speaker is well within one's options.

Definitely. But what about contacting all of the conference's sponsors, and insinuating that they're racist if they don't denounce the conference and pull their sponsorship? Or encouraging all of the previous speakers to denounce the organizers? Both of those happened.

Probably both allowed, but... wow, some real nasty behavior.

Such behavior infringes on the opportunity of others to decide whether or not they want to hear the speech in question.

is this just supposition or can you show where this actually happened?

The moment there was an alternate conference in the same town on the same weekend announced by the objectors it became about a balance of resources and attendees. Those who are organizing, presenting, and attending Moonconf have every reason to badmouth anyone associated with LambdaConf.

Here's one of the early objectors citing a presenter who has openly and thoughtfully struggled with attending LambdaConf: https://twitter.com/swannodette/status/714851217512513536

Here's an early Storify story of reactions to allowing Yarvin to speak - you will find that the most vocal objectors have continued to bash and badmouth anyone associated with LambdaConf: https://storify.com/adngyipa/lambdaconf-debate-in-tweets

This comment (plus many others on Twitter that you can find by searching "lambdaconf sponsors") suggests that all sponsors but one pulled out due to pressure.

https://twitter.com/fatneckbeardguy/status/71358678287339520...

So I put some tweets in another message, but they weren't exactly the ones I was referring to; like I said, search is difficult on a phone. But I didn't want to make it seem like I was misconstruing what was said, so I wanted to post some clearer ones as well:

"@47deg Hi, are you still going to sponsor LambdaConf if they give a platform to someone who thinks blacks are suited for slavery?" - https://twitter.com/ekrubnivek/status/713501535515226113

"@andrewfnewman @adrienneleigh So, the racist organizers of lambdaconf selected his talk knowing who they would get? Smart move, clearly!" - https://twitter.com/extempore2/status/714502151884505088

"If you've spoken at LambdaConf: have you repudiated its organizers for making the choice to include bigots and exclude marginalized people?" - https://twitter.com/fatneckbeardguy/status/71280436894525030...

FWIW, extempore2 was making the opposite point - he's been one of the most vocal in criticizing the boycotters.

Ah, sorry, I did not realize that. One of twitter's many endearing features is how easy it is to take tweets out of context. I'd edit my post to remove it, but I can't.

Twitter search is terrible, especially on a phone, but here is some:

https://mobile.twitter.com/antifuchs/status/7128837259948236...

https://mobile.twitter.com/antifuchs/status/7128835537977057...

I think that's a fine opinion. It's an active choice to not get involved, and I think dynamic partitioning is a good way to handle things (dissent and go one's own way).

It's a bit ironic, since I hadn't really known about the conference, and it sounds really cool. After all, I can just not go to that speaker - whoever he is (the controversy really doesn't interest me) - and see some of the other neat talks. I think as far as conference prices go, it's not too bad, but I wasn't planning on it (and there's always the ever-larger cost of travel/lodging), so I suspect I won't see it =/

I also wonder if it is a somewhat generational thing.

Younger people are more used to some level of surveillance, whether through NSA, facebook, google, advertising cookies, etc. They're more comfortable with surveilling as a general concept, whether they're subjected to it, or they're the ones doing the surveilling. I remember when it was considered extremely rude to google someone before meeting them for the first time. And I'm not old, this was very recent history.

And with Twitter there is the whole callout culture. I used to be in favor of outing hypocrites, but not anymore when I witness the incredibly asymmetric response that public shaming can inspire. And how that response can then be defended as free speech.

So with all that mixed together, free speech is basically equated with mob mentality. When I think that there really should be a few principles inserted that distinguish between the two. Perhaps some personal responsibility in understanding what kind of public impact your free speech can have. Like, refusing to attend a conference is fine; attempting to organize a boycott on grounds like these, especially if successful, threatens the free exchange of ideas.

Also I think there is a generational difference regarding compartmentalization. Like for me I've always had a personal mode, a work mode, a music mode - different modes. For people that are more used to sharing everything wherever, maybe it's ridiculous to them to see someone else try and hold up those boundaries. (This could drive some of the criticism against LambdaConf, in that they'd completely minimize the point about Yarvin attending and leaving Moldbug out of it.)

Finally, there's the conflated argument between being PC and being hostile to challenging ideas; feeling like your worldview is being attacked. They're not the same thing. Being PC is generally a good thing, I see it as a simile for "respectful". But when safe zones and trigger warnings are taken to their extremes, you basically have a community guilty of self-coddling and refusing to have their views challenged and expanded.

What's wrong with that worldview? Seems like the only issue is employers and landlords (??) overreacting. Why shouldn't someone be able to say "No soup for you 'cause I think you're an asshole?" Or why shouldn't I be able to not want to work with someone because they think npm did nothing wrong?

I find it troubling what people get upset about these days. But it seems entirely their right to be upset about whatever they feel like. And others' right to mock them for it.

It's disappointing that platforms like Facebook and Google don't seem neutral (the latter two taking steps to prevent gun sales). But until they're regulated it seems entirely OK for them to promote their own views.

> Seems like the only issue is employers and landlords (??) overreacting

http://www.gjsentinel.com/news/articles/no-trump-voters-allo...

> I find it troubling what people get upset about these days. But it seems entirely their right to be upset about whatever they feel like. And others' right to mock them for it.

The thing is, any individual actor doing these things is fine, and can look at their own actions and feel that they are acting ethically. But when that gets scaled up to the entire society, especially with outrage culture and mass coordination via instant worldwide communication it doesn't work. I don't know, it's like some weird variation on the prisoner's dilemma or something.

I think you're describing the right to free association. But when free association is dominated by mob mentality it becomes a minefield for dissenting voices.

so, ideally, undesirables couldn't find shelter because nobody should be forced to have undesirable tenants. undesirable shouldn't be able to find food, because no entrepreneur should be forced to sell their goods to undesirable customers.

undesirables, in an ideal world, should die slowly of hunger in the gutter.

freedom!

So what's your proposal for how to restrict the speech of others so they're unable to call for people to be fired? I'd be even more interested in your proposals to require everyone to be admitted to privately owned stores and private functions.

These calls for consequence-free speech are fundamentally hypocritical, because they require the speech of others to be suppressed so that the offending party doesn't suffer (where "suffer" has a very broad definition).

Freedom of speech is freedom to criticize. You, of course, are free to criticize in return. But don't pretend that your calls for people's speech to be suppressed are some kind of noble act.

> So what's your proposal for how to restrict the speech of others so they're unable to call for people to be fired? I'd be even more interested in your proposals to require everyone to be admitted to privately owned stores and private functions.

Why do you assume I'm proposing restricting people's speech? I'm pointing out a thing some people are doing which I think is bad, and suggesting that they should think about the kind of world they're creating when they do that. Nowhere did I suggest that they shouldn't be allowed to do it.

You are arguing against a perspective that wasn't voiced here. Unless you'd like to expand on how someone is saying that criticism should be suppressed or restricted in some sense.

Person A: says something offensive Person B: Dear Person A's Employer: Person A says offensive things and you should fire him. Person C: Hey Person B, you shouldn't write letters like that.

who is attempting to restrict speech in this situation?

Either person B or C, depending on whether or not they are enforcing laws for the government. Possibly person A depending on what was said I suppose (e.g. if it's new legislation).

"Either person B or C, depending on whether or not they are enforcing laws for the government."

If there's no problem with B's behavior, the takeaway is that no one can say anything that anyone would take offense to, because they'd be putting their employment at risk. No thanks.

There are ways besides government force to chill free speech.

"This xkcd perfectly summarizes this worldview, although I think it was produced earnestly and not as a demonstration of how terrible it is: https://xkcd.com/1357/"

Yes, that one was enough to make me stop reading xkcd.

1. The First Amendment is US-centric and also only applies to government.

And:

2. So what?

Just because you can say racist shit doesn't mean I have to listen to it, acknowledge your existence, participate in any event that decides to invite you to speak, or anything else.

You're entitled to your own actions, but you have no entitlement to the action of others in response.

The world doesn't owe you anything. Treat others as you'd like to be treated, etc, etc.

> Treat others as you'd like to be treated, etc, etc.

Good point—as someone who's helped organize a conference, I'd really like people to not try sabotaging my conference because they didn't like one of the speakers we chose. So, I guess that's where I stand. Is your comment indicative of how you would like us to treat you?

The problem is not free association - the problem is the mob that has ensued: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11385733

This becomes even more disturbing in a world where the public commons is being dominated by private interests.